[JohnKSa]

As mentioned before, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's Lobbyist in Illinois, told us he killed the bill. He later told me in person. Yes, he killed the bill.

Fair enough. All I had to go on was the linked thread provide in the op.

So, assuming that he did lobby against the law, one should ask: "Why is this guy (with whom everyone seems to be "very impressed" and who does this for a living) opposing this law?"

There's a patchwork of laws across the country, too, but I don't see Indiana or Kentucky jumping to standardize on the Illinois model to make sure nobody ever gets confused.

Not even close to the same problem. State lines are almost always pretty well defined. Municipal boundaries, especially in less rural areas, are not at all clear, in general.

...fears about landing in jail because you pass through a "no-carry municipality" are real, and people would certainly need to keep them in mind.

Unless the law comes with a rider stating that all municipal boundaries need to be clearly marked, warnings to "keep them in mind" are pretty pointless. Unless things are VERY different in IL than they are everywhere else I've ever been, municipal boundaries tend to be very inconsistently marked when they're marked at all.

There are roughly 1300 municipalities in Illinois. There are roughly 200 home-rule entities. That means that the vast majority of municipalities will not have the option of opting out of this measure.

Assuming of course that none of the other 1100 municipalities decide to take the relatively simple step of becoming home-rule entities.

The reason it's (theoretically--remember, this hasn't been tested) easier to pass LTC if it's subject to home rule is that it requires 60 votes rather than 71, and 60 is less than 71.

Assuming, of course that the anti-gun speaker for some reason lets a carry bill pass with a simple majority. Which, I suppose, he might do if the perceives the bill as worthless--which should tell IL gun owners pushing for this bill something. If, indeed, it IS allowed to pass with a simple majority, the only reason that can happen is if an anti-gunner lets it happen. In other words, the very fact that everyone seem to think it will be much easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT.

They expect the legislative end to be rendered moot. Of course, if that happens, it's going to take years, but what are years between friends, right?

It's would also take years to turn a non-preemption carry law into a workable solution. And there's the real possibility that having a carry law in place would make a legal challenge much more complicated. The only reason Heller went through is because there was a TOTAL ban on firearms. While aspects of it might be useful in overturning a TOTAL ban on carry, there's no way it's going to be useful once there's a carry law (even a practically useless one) in place.